OK, maybe not. I just brought it up the cost and various people claimed it was nothing to do with Amtrak, and I disagreed. I can't claim that I know how big the cost is relative to the other costs of the train.

If the goal is simply to make sure that a hundred or 200 places (I'm not doing the count) in the US have access to public transportation, the cheapest way is obviously to subsidize bus service to those places.

A small fraction of people on those train will ride buses, which do not exist in any case.

If few people ride the trains, and fewer would ride the buses, and there isn't enough political interest to improve the travel times and/or transportation infrastructure to these smaller cities, then perhaps there isn't any travel demand to these cities in the first place anymore and it's time to move on. If they want to keep their supposedly coveted rail service then they can ride it and/or fight for it, which thankfully a lot of these places are doing.

If you have been too ignorant to follow the SW Chief issue over the past 2 years, that's your problem.

Yeah okay, me and you both would be hard pressed to find any credible source to corroborate your notion that the bus bridge was "dangerous".

The NEC gets $750 million in federal subsidies. Throw 23 states off the map, it would get $0.

The Northeast Corridor pretty much pays for itself as well as some the long-distance losers, and connects some of the most populated cities in the United States with each other. Nothing would happen to it even if the feds were to fall on their heads one day and decided to stop subsidizing it.

This is a VERY stupid argument you are picking.

There is no argument, if rail service were to be cut to these cities, then subsidizing bus service or perhaps even Uber rides to these cities would be the cheapest replacement.

And where's Greyhound going to get the $$$ for all the new buses & drivers for the expanded service? Is Greyhound doing that well? Do they want the new business? Their still a private company with fuel, labor, maintenance & insurance costs unpredictable to put it mildly. What makes it a given that Greyhound would want the business that may or may not be good for the bottom line? They would still have the right of refusal for any new service.
If ( and I extremely doubt) that Greyhound is expected (or forced) to fill the void left by the demise of long distance Amtrak service, it wouldn't be long before before the hound comes begging at Uncle Sam's door with its bowl begging for a handout.

And where's Greyhound going to get the $$$ for all the new buses & drivers for the expanded service?... If ( and I extremely doubt) that Greyhound is expected (or forced) to fill the void left by the demise of long distance Amtrak service, it wouldn't be long before before the hound comes begging at Uncle Sam's door with its bowl begging for a handout.

From the same place where Amtrak gets it money, at a much lower cost to the government than Amtrak too. Interestingly enough, once Greyhound stopped service to a lot of smaller cities and handed off those services to smaller rural operators that are supported by government subsidies, Greyhound's profits increased, hmm...

What makes it a given that Greyhound would want the business that may or may not be good for the bottom line?

Why would Greyhound, as a private company, want to be forced into a situation where it would have to be manipulated by the whims of politicians who control the purse strings?
They seemed to be doing all right w/o the need for any extra Amtrak business.

The Northeast Corridor pretty much pays for itself as well as some the long-distance losers, and connects some of the most populated cities in the United States with each other. Nothing would happen to it even if the feds were to fall on their heads one day and decided to stop subsidizing it.

One big reason the NEC does so well (besides the BosWash megalopolis itself) is that every mile of track on it, including the three branches, is owned by a government entity. The NEC, depending on where you are on it, belongs either to Amtrak, Metro-North, or the US Department of Transportation. Then there are usage fees Amtrak gets from the various commuter agencies running on its tracks (SEPTA, NJT, MARC, MBTA, MTA, CT Rail, SLE, VRE) plus the usual federal subsidy.

The other part of the equation is its high demand. If the "feds were to fall on their heads one day and decided to stop subsidizing it", it wouldn't be long before the catenary went cold, and everything stopped running. That would be a serious economic problem for 30+ million people that would be felt right away.

Think back to the period immediately post-9/11. Because nothing was flying, people jammed onto NEC trains like they were fleeing Godzilla. Nobody remembers it now, but every piece of rolling stock Amtrak could find that week, was put on to carry them. Without the NEC, the Northeast economy alone would have missed six days of activity, which on top of the huge, deep NYSE plunge on 9/17, would have put us in deep Depression territory. Just something to ponder.

There are many credible sources, including portion of roads the Bus would have taken that have signs stating no snow plow services for 12 hours per day, the area is so remote and little used.

REPEAT : 23 states / 46 Senators would be left with no service. They are not being asked to subsidized their interstate highways.
I am not going to do research and post URL's to disprove your stupid claims.

REPEAT: The NEC gets $750 million in federal subsidies. It does not pay for itself. That is half Amtrak's appropriation.

NOBODY takes Uber for 500 - 1,000 mile distances, which is the average distance that people ride LD trains. Greyhound is disappearing across the continent.

Republican Senator Moran (KS) has placed an indefinite hold on any new Amtrak Board appointments, of which there are 4, because Anderson will not commit to cease his attacks on the SW Chief AND inserted Appropriation language that the route must continue.

Greyhound was used as an example. The point was that if the only reason for long distance trains is to serve remote communities, then it is much cheaper to pay some bus company to do it than to pay Amtrak.

When Amtrak routes have come off, Greyhound got ZERO of its passengers.

Because the government isn't subsidizing Greyhound.

It's cheaper to serve remote areas of the US with subsidized bus service than with subsidized train service. That is a fact, even though it isn't the only argument to be made for or against the continuation of long distance train service.

So you're saying that funding for long distance Amtrak trains be transferred to intercity/long distance bus companies to cover their losses & let the long distance trains die?
Many folks have to sign off on this, which in the real world will never happen, regardless of the mathemetical gimmickry that would show an on paper savings.